Court Decision Opens Door for Previously Rejected RAF Claims
You can also find this podcast on iono.fm here.
JEREMY MAGGS: A noteworthy decision from the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has brought new uncertainty to the Road Accident Fund (RAF) claims procedure. The court has ruled that critical changes to the claims process were unlawful, asserting that both the RAF and Transport Minister Barbara Creecy exceeded their authority by imposing stricter requirements for the RAF 1 claim form.
What does this mean? It seems that thousands of previously rejected claims may need to be re-submitted by the end of September, which will likely put additional pressure on an already strained system. Let’s delve into the implications for claimants, lawyers, and the Road Accident Fund itself.
Read: The RAF may require a significant government bailout …
I’m now talking with Kirstie Haslam, a partner at DSC Attorneys. Kirstie, could you explain what the Supreme Court of Appeal found concerning the claims process?
KIRSTIE HASLAM: Hello, Jeremy. Initially, the Road Accident Fund introduced a new claim form in 2022. Although it seemed straightforward, the requirements meant that claimants had to submit an impeccably prepared and fully detailed claim just to have it accepted for registration.
ADVERTISEMENT
CONTINUE READING BELOW
This requirement was exceedingly burdensome and impractical, which is why both the Supreme Court of Appeal and lower courts found issues with the method used to implement that claim form.
To correctly implement it, there should have been public consultation, allowing stakeholders to provide input on the viability of the new system. Unfortunately, this was entirely overlooked, resulting in years of litigation that culminated in the recent SCA ruling.
JEREMY MAGGS: Kirstie, even more concerning is that the court mentioned both the fund and the minister acted beyond their authorized powers. How serious is this conclusion?
KIRSTIE HASLAM: It is a serious finding. Notably, when the case reached the Supreme Court of Appeal, the minister did not even participate, leaving the Road Accident Fund to defend its actions on its own. Initially, the Fund attempted to implement the form through just a board notice, but when they recognized the complexity of the situation, they had the minister publish the new claim form. It’s alarming that administrative law was bypassed in an attempt to create an efficient new system, which has instead led to chaos and numerous challenges for claimants.
Read:
RAF counter application over ‘blank cheque’ claims dismissed
Mandatory mediation of RAF cases ‘a failure’
RAF gets fourth CEO in seven months
JEREMY MAGGS: Now, in relation to claimants, why is this ruling particularly significant for everyday road accident victims?
KIRSTIE HASLAM: This ruling offers claimants a new chance until September 30 of this year, a rather limited timeframe, to resubmit claims that were previously unlawfully rejected. In our practice, we’ve encountered rejections every time we filed a claim since 2022, often leading to non-registration. Compounded by the RAF’s internal claims system, which lacks the capacity to track rejected claims, we face numerous issues.
As a result, claimants can now resubmit. However, the significant delays in processing claims have led to a considerable backlog that requires registration and resolution.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
JEREMY MAGGS: Let me tread cautiously with my next question—how much of this is theoretical, given the likelihood that the fund will eventually need a significant government bailout due to its precarious financial condition?
KIRSTIE HASLAM: It is crucial to note that it operates as a pay-as-you-go system, different from typical insurance models that require reserves for outstanding claims. Since the implementation of the new claim form, the rate of claim finalization has plummeted, with new claims registration falling by 72%, therefore leading to a notable drop in finalization rates, raising questions about any potential savings from this decline.
Additionally, we must consider the impact of the fuel levy, as delays in adjustments here have negatively affected the fund’s liquidity and its ability to settle claims.
Read:
Govt slashes levy on diesel to zero, as it extends fuel relief
Illegal foreigners cannot be excluded from claiming road accident compensation – SCA
RAF ordered to pay 209 road accident victims R47m in 30 days
JEREMY MAGGS: So, if I’m correct, claimants need to re-lodge by September 30. Is this deadline practical?
KIRSTIE HASLAM: It is a very tight timeline. My main concern is for those claimants who dealt directly with the Road Accident Fund, tried to lodge their claims, and were likely turned away—they may not even be aware of this ruling.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
The fund must raise awareness through publications in various newspapers and inform the public about this change, encouraging them to resubmit claims. However, I worry that many victims will miss this opportunity. Those affected should consult an experienced attorney as soon as possible. While meeting the deadline is achievable, quick action is essential.
Read:
RAF ordered to pay Sunshine Hospital R92m within seven days
RAF liabilities could increase by R400bn [Nov 2025]
RAF inquiry: Two years and almost R23bn in excess payments
JEREMY MAGGS: That is, of course, if the RAF is equipped to handle a new influx of re-lodged claims.
KIRSTIE HASLAM: Indeed. Following the Supreme Court of Appeal ruling, the Road Accident Fund announced that their claims management system has been updated to accommodate the previously valid claim form, the 2008 claim form, which has effectively been reinstated by the SCA. They claim to have improved their system, but managing a surge of new claims will still present a significant challenge for them.
JEREMY MAGGS: Thank you very much, Kirstie Haslam, partner at DSC Attorneys.